Hosking on NZ First

It appears Mr Mark’s move is aimed at forestalling any bid to recruit former Labour MP Shane Jones in to the party and to be installed as Mr Peters’ successor.

This has long been rumoured and on the surface it makes sense. Mr Jones and Mr Peters are known to be close: both are Northlanders by origin, and now Mr Peters holds the Northland seat Mr Jones is in a good position to take it if and when Mr Peters stands down.

Mr Peters himself is 70 and visibly flags at times in Parliament. The blokey, big personality of Mr Jones fits the New Zealand First brand rather well, and having left Labour because he no longer fitted within that rather shrunken, politically correct organisation, will be looking for a new vehicle.

So the received wisdom goes.

The trouble is, this could only work if New Zealand First MPs were prepared to behave like dumb cattle.

They might be known as “hillbillies” around Parliament but New Zealand First MPs are not beasts of burden at the beck and call of Winston Peters. They are, after all, politicians. They have politicians’ egos.

The ‘received wisdom’ that the whole thing would be neatly done by shipping Mr Jones in over the heads of the caucus always looked like the kind of idea cooked up in some room in Wellington and which involved the human beings involved behaving, well, not like human beings.

It was never going to work – at least, not without a major and highly destructive fight.

All this assumes, of course, Mr Jones actually wants the job.

But does he?

Leading a small political party is a huge job. Taking over someone else’s small political party, when most of the caucus members of that party do not want you there?

It doesn’t sounds like a job with a future.

Rob is right, and wrong.

He is right that Shane Jones can not just be foisted on a caucus that doesn’t want him.

He is also right that Jones may not want the job – especially if pushed onto colleagues who don’t want him. He had enough of that in Labour!

But where Rob may be wrong is the assumption that the caucus would not want him. Sure half of them probably think they could be leader, but deep down they will be worried that without Winston they won’t make 5% or hold Northland, and then all of them are unemployed.

Comments (17)

Black with a Vengeance

David Garrett

Surely this is utterly academic? does anyone know if Jones has any interest in returning to parliament? I suspect his current well paid ego trip suits him quite well…It’s hard work being a leader of a small party, and he is not apparently known for a fondness for hard work…

Ron Mark could make the 5%. I am sure there are plenty of people who vote NZF just because of Winston. The main reason I vote NZF is because of there policy on binding referenda. It is a sensible policy that could work unlike to convoluted referenda policy of the CCCP.

The CCCP got close to 4% on the final count. They will be lucky to get 1% if they actually stand in 2017. NZF will get much of their vote. Ron Mark is a competent person and can express himself well.

Ron Mark: Have we underestimated ISIS?

8:07 AM Tuesday Jul 7, 2015

In many ways Iraq reminds me of Yugoslavia. Both countries were created after the First World War from a collection of ill-fitting provinces filled with religious and ethnic tension.

Both needed a ruthless strongman to keep a lid on these tensions and when those strongmen left the scene, be it Tito or Saddam Hussein, those tensions boiled over.

JeffDaRef

A leadership team of Peters-Mark and/or Jones-Mark would strengthen NZF overall and that may well be all Mark was trying to achieve. NZF seems to have done a PR push this week and having read a little more about Mitchell and Tabuteau I’d imagine they’d fall right in behind Jones.

Tracey Martin seems to be more of a fit for Labour than NZF – other than the family connection meaning getting into Parliament with NZF was the easier option.

With National moving ever-further left and NZF seeming to have some pretty sensible folk like mitchell, Tabuteau and perhaps Jones in the ranks…we’re looking at National’s next coalition partner anyway arent we…?

G152

hj

A good reason for voting NZ First is this:

The politicization of immigration in New Zealand has contributed to a growing public ambivalence about immigration and its contribution to the development of New Zealand’s society and economy. Briefing papers prepared for the recently re-elected Labor government signal a number of concerns about current levels of immigration in general and the impact of immigration on Auckland’s society and economy in particular. Minister of Immigration Lianne Dalziel has indicated that several aspects of the current policy, in addition to the level of English required by prospective residents, will be reviewed over the next few months.

Notwithstanding this ambivalence, there seems to be clear recognition and acceptance that New Zealand society is going to become more diverse in terms of ethnic and cultural groups over the next 20 years. Immigration will play a major part in this diversification of communities, especially immigration from countries in Asia. Fortunately, there seems to be a broad consensus among the main political parties as well as many of the minor ones that this is not something to be feared or resisted at all costs. In this regard, there appears to be some consensus of party view (excluding the position adopted by New Zealand First) that continued immigration at or above present levels will produce positive outcomes for the country’s economy and society.

“The big adverse gap in productivity between New Zealand and other countries opened up from the 1970s to the early 1990s. The policy choice that increased immigration – given the number of employers increasingly unable to pay First-World wages to the existing population and all the capital requirements that increasing populations involve – looks likely to have worked almost directly against the adjustment New Zealand needed to make and it might have been better off with a lower rate of net immigration. This adjustment would have involved a lower real interest rate (and cost of capital) and a lower real exchange rate, meaning a more favourable environment for raising the low level of productive capital per worker and labour productivity. The low level of capital per worker is a striking symptom of New Zealand’s economic challenge.

kowtow

Dennis,

I too had that view , he served so get off his back. And he did serve and can and should be proud of his service, I wouldn’t knock him being a mechanic, a clerk what evr.

However ,if you read marks’ own parliament page ,it leaves one with the impression of SAS service. Note carefully the wording. That is a weebit misleading andf should be clearer. Then there’s no question of being accused of claiming service one doesn’t have.

Warren Murray

Boris Piscina

English doesn’t want it, though he would probably get it for the asking, and could almost certainly do it, and do it well, now even if not then.

Joyce couldn’t do it and we may only hope that his assertions that he doesn’t want it are truthful.

Brownlee could do it but isn’t sufficiently marketable. Looking like David Lange isn’t enough – you have to be funny like Lange as well. And Gerry isn’t funny.

Tolley could do it. I don’t understand why she isn’t rated.

Paula Bennett is a way off being ready just yet. Maybe two more terms.

Judith isn’t rehabilitated yet, and there are more as yet unpublicised skeletons in her closet.

Bridges is just too young. Otherwise all boxes ticked.

Amy Adams is capable enough but too openly ambitious.

Todd McClay has most of the prerequisites but lacks the common touch. Time and training should fix that.

Finlayson could do it standing on his head but isn’t interested and voters in NZ are miles off being ready for an openly gay Leader (Clark was never open – or opened hahahahaha sorry couldn’t resist that ;-)).

…..so if JK were to fall under a logging truck tomorrow, where would we be? English by default, at least in the short term, but where to from there?

Rachael Membery

An Army would grind to a halt without its mechanics and cooks. They are all in the same place at the same time, as the ‘soldiers’ why the disdain? They all still have all of the military training, still go to hotspots, still are in danger. Are vital.

My daughter was going to chef in the Navy, it is not a free isolated ride!!